The court found that the plaintiffs had been in open, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for over fifty years, cultivating and residing on it, and burying family members there. The defendant, though registered as proprietor since 2005, had not taken any steps to assert his rights or interrupt the plaintiffs' possession, and lived elsewhere. The evidence presented by the plaintiffs was unchallenged and cogent, satisfying the legal requirements for adverse possession. The court held that the plaintiffs had proved their case on a balance of probabilities and were entitled to be registered as proprietors of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession.